The main legal point established in the judgment is that termination of services must adhere to the prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice, and in cases where termination is set aside on technical grounds, denovo proceedings must be initiated and the period is to be treated under suspension.

JUDGMENT

Krishna Murari, C.J. (Oral) - CM No. 2438-LPA of 2018

Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 53 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 894 of 2018 (O&M)

This intra-court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.02.2018 setting aside the order of termination of the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) as also the award of the Labour

Court rejecting the reference and directing to treat the petitioner under suspension and to calculate and disburse the subsistence allowance.

2. Facts giving rise to the dispute can be summarized as under:-

Appellant-petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.12.1995. The respondents framed a scheme of regularization for daily wage employees. The name of the petitioner-respondent No.1 alongwith other similarly situated employees was considered and his services were regularized w.e.f. 26.12.2001. Certain persons challenged the process of regularization by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 15843 of 2002 wherein petitioner-respondent No.1 was also arrayed as a respondent alleging irregularities in the process of regularizations. While implementing the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the matter of regularization of respondent No.1 was re-examined and it was found that his name was wrongly included in the list and the inclusion of his name was a result of connivance with some of the officials of the appellant. Accordingly vide order dated 22.05.2003 the services of respondent No.1 were terminated on the ground that the order of regularization was obtained in collusion with the erring officials. Respondent No.1 approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 8354 of 2003 wherein an interim stay was granted on 27.05.2003. However, subsequently the matter was relegated to be considered by the Labour Court vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2003. Accordingly, a reference was made. However, the Labour Court dismissed the reference holding that there is no illegality in the order of termination dated 22.05.2003.

3. The award passed by the Labour Court as well as the termination order was challenged by respondent No.1 by filing the petition on the ground that his services were terminated without any charge-sheet or holding any disciplinary enquiry.

4. It is pertinent to point out at this stage that this factual position was not disputed by the appellants before the learned Single Judge. The case set up by the appellants was that a show cause notice was issued and the order terminating the services was passed after obtaining explanation from respondent No.1 and thus there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly the services of respondent No.1 was regularized vide order dated 26.12.2001 and the same were governed by the Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1997) which contains a provision for initiation of regular departmental enquiry for the purpose of dismissal or termination. Learned Single Judge finding that the services of the petitioner-respondent No.1 stood regularized vide order dated 26.12.2001 which gave him a status of a permanent employee and thus without following the procedure prescribed by Regulations-1997 and without holding a regular disciplinary enquiry as per the prescribed procedure, the termination of services by issuing a show cause notice and calling for explanation was against the service regulations and thus not sustainable. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge held the termination order to be bad in law being in the teeth of service regulations and the Labour Court also committed a manifest error in law in rejecting the reference ignoring this aspect of the matter.

5. Learned Single Judge further held that respondent No.1 would be d